The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-28-2003, 01:28 AM
Gadarene Gadarene is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 6,636
A Consensus Definition of 'Rape.'

Okay, there've been some ugly threads on this topic of late, and I have no intention of simply providing another forum for the fighting. But there's been one point, made repeatedly, that I have to challenge: several posters have reacted skeptically to any definition of rape that reaches beyond the standard conception of violent, forcible penetration. In particular, these posters--I can dig up the cites if y'all like--have played down the notion that diminished capacity (due to alcohol, say) might lead to rape by saying, "Well, what if they're both drunk? Would they be raping each other?" Far be it for me to contest this sparkling display of rhetorical skill--every time I read this, however, I have a fairly simple thought that might cut through the bullshit regarding whether some act of less-than-perfectly-consensual sex was or was not rape:

If the person initiating sex knows or should reasonably know that his/her partner probably wouldn't or doesn't want to be engaging in the activity, this is rape. This should be a no-brainer. So two drunk college kids, their judgment equally impaired--not rape if the guy knew no better than the girl. A drunk college guy deliberately taking advantage of a passed-out college girl ("taking advantage" signifying, by definition, a perceived opportunity to do something they might not otherwise be able to)--how can this not be rape? Same thing goes for potential instances of relationship rape: if a husband doesn't think his wife wants to have sex at a given moment but has sex with her anyway, this is rape.

Does this definition help clarify at all? Is it pernicious in ways that I'm not at the moment seeing?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 02-28-2003, 02:35 AM
Truth Seeker Truth Seeker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
For someone who doesn't want to start up another fight, you use some pretty confrontational language.

My point all along has been that I don't really care how you define rape, as long as you do so. If you want to define "rape" as any sexual act that occurs without the express consent of the U.N. Security Council, that's fine with me. However, you need to be upfront about the precise definition you are using. That way, when you say "One in four women will be raped during their college careers!" I'll understand what it is you're actually saying.

Your definition is OK, as it goes. I think, however, that the grey area in the conduct you are discussing is pretty large. Sure, if someone is out cold, having sexual intercourse with them would be rape, not to mention pretty boring. However, you can be pretty far out of it but still actively "cooperating." Do you think this ought to be rape under your definition

It also seems like your definition might let drunken guys off the hook. If his judgment is impaired he might not "know" that there was no consent, even though he would if sober.

Finally, your definition would be pretty hard to gather statistics on! So, while it might work as a philosophical definition, it might not work as a practical one for conducting studies and surveys.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-28-2003, 04:08 AM
Airman Doors, USAF Airman Doors, USAF is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 13,220
Then should most men "reasonably" assume that women will have second thoughts later and accuse them of rape? Or that women will come with you into your bedroom and yet it cannot "reasonably" be assumed that there will be sexual intercourse involved?

I'm just wondering, because by those two above "reasonable" criterion, Mike Tyson is innocent of rape.

Nothing about rape can possibly be "reasonable". It either is or it isn't, and that's a matter of consent, which in many cases cannot be "reasonably" determined.

See the flaws with that definition yet?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-28-2003, 04:10 AM
even sven even sven is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
The best definition of rape that I've heard came from the women's center counseler at my college. She said "Rape is forcible penetration involving the sexual organs of at least one party when one is unable to resist (which includes violence, extreme incompasitation, and threats).

So if you are simply drunk but you say "yes" or are reasonably capable of resisiting, it's not rape. But if you are incapacitated to the point that you cannot consent, or if you are held down in some way, or if you are otherwise unable to resist- it's rape.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-28-2003, 08:09 AM
Zoff Zoff is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Quote:
Originally posted by Gadarene
If the person initiating sex knows or should reasonably know that his/her partner probably wouldn't or doesn't want to be engaging in the activity, this is rape.
I think "probably wouldn't" is problematic because whether a person would or wouldn't can be fairly fluid. What is the standard for determining whether they probably would or wouldn't? Is it that they wouldn't wake up on a Sunday and want to sleep with person X?

If two people watch a romantic movie, for instance, and that puts somebody in a frame of mind they normally wouldn't be in they might sleep with a person they would not sleep with after watching a football game.

That's my real quick thought.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-28-2003, 08:35 AM
Felonious Mink Felonious Mink is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
I agree with even sven , any definition of rape must surely convey the inability to resist. The whole point is that rape is, at least from one side, a non-consenting activity which is forced upon one person at the behest of another.

Also, I think that the 'drunken students' scenario is always going to be a problem. To some people taking advantage of someone who's passed out drunk is going to be every bit as bad as rape, whereas to others it's just one of those things that happens when you're drunk, and the fact that you're drunk is sufficiently mitigating circumstances.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-28-2003, 08:36 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 26,536
Quote:
if a husband doesn't think his wife wants to have sex at a given moment but has sex with her anyway, this is rape.
Define "wants to".

"Oh, for heaven's sake - the kids have been impossible since they got home, Shirley called in sick and I had to cover for her at work, then when I got home my sister is on the phone kvetching about her asshole boyfriend again, I've done two loads of laundry and I think the brakes are going out on the car - now he wants sex!

Fine - go ahead, but don't expect much fireworks - I have to get up in the morning."

Is this rape?

"We've been dating for a month, and I am afraid if I don't he'll dump me. I suppose we better..."

Is this rape?

"Well, I don't really like it that way, but it is your birthday, so...."

Is this rape?

I don't think you can ever eliminate ambiguity from the mating dance.

Regards,
Shodan
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-28-2003, 01:27 PM
Smitty Smitty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Quote:
Originally posted by even sven
The best definition of rape that I've heard came from the women's center counseler at my college. She said "Rape is forcible penetration involving the sexual organs of at least one party when one is unable to resist (which includes violence, extreme incompasitation, and threats).
I don't see how this definition includes threats. Being threatened doesn't make you unable to resist. It might make you unwilling to resist because of the probable consequences, but unwilling and unable are two different things.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-28-2003, 01:50 PM
Gadarene Gadarene is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 6,636
Quote:
I don't see how this definition includes threats. Being threatened doesn't make you unable to resist. It might make you unwilling to resist because of the probable consequences, but unwilling and unable are two different things.
I agree with this. And let me say that I'm not proposing my definition as a legal standard; determining whether someone "reasonably should have known" that someone didn't want to sleep with them is problematic in all but the clearest of circumstances. But at the same time, there's a judgment call involved here that really isn't all that hard: if the guy thinks the girl doesn't want to have sex (read as: is in some meaningful way not consenting) and yet does it anyway, he is--as far as his own judgment and/or conscience should be concerned--effectively raping her. In this way, Shodan's hypotheticals are inapposite--I'm not concerned with the woman's inner monologue, but with the man's.

Quote:
To some people taking advantage of someone who's passed out drunk is going to be every bit as bad as rape, whereas to others it's just one of those things that happens when you're drunk, and the fact that you're drunk is sufficiently mitigating circumstances.
This leaves me speechless.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-28-2003, 02:07 PM
desroscactus desroscactus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
I hadn't planned on posting to this subject until I read the statement:

Quote:
Being threatened doesn't make you unable to resist. It might make you unwilling to resist because of the probable consequences, but unwilling and unable are two different things.
Under that line of thinking, people being mugged who choose to give up their money rather than get shot, are agreeing to the robbery. There are consequences, that's true. A gun being pointed at your head tells you what those consequences might be.

In the same way, women are usually smaller than men. Being told that they will be beaten if they don't submit is an honest threat. I know that people often say that a woman should have done some things like scream or try to fight them off, but how realistic is that? Making a loud noise could cause a punch in the face or worse. Fighting them off may not be possible.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-28-2003, 02:18 PM
Gadarene Gadarene is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 6,636
Whoops. Christ. I posted agreement without reading carefully enough. I agree with desroscactus's criticism of Smitty's post. ...And yet I do think sex under threat constitutes rape, whether the woman is, technically speaking, unable or unwilling. This is why we should place greater weight on whether or not the man knows or should know that the woman doesn't want to.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-28-2003, 02:29 PM
nogginhead nogginhead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally posted by even sven
The best definition of rape that I've heard came from the women's center counseler at my college. She said "Rape is forcible penetration involving the sexual organs of at least one party when one is unable to resist (which includes violence, extreme incompasitation, and threats).

So if you are simply drunk but you say "yes" or are reasonably capable of resisiting, it's not rape. But if you are incapacitated to the point that you cannot consent, or if you are held down in some way, or if you are otherwise unable to resist- it's rape.
As others have said, this doesn't deal with being afraid of resisting.

I would amend to 'unable or unwilling to resist' myself.

I expect that some would say that this requires mind-reading on the part of the penetrating party. "How was I supposed to know she was unwilling to resist?"

I suppose that's true to some degree... reasonable people could differ about whether the penetrating party should have known.

On the other hand, you're either an idiot or you're not. If you're not an idiot, you probably should have picked up on the body language and social cues that the penetration was unwelcome-- rape.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-28-2003, 02:43 PM
erislover erislover is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally posted by even sven
She said "Rape is forcible penetration involving the sexual organs of at least one party when one is unable to resist (which includes violence, extreme incompasitation, and threats).
I find this to be not only an intuitively correct criterion, but a rather workable one in practice. The "threat" factor has wiggle room, but such is life.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-28-2003, 02:59 PM
Pencil Pusher Pencil Pusher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Quote:
Originally posted by Gadarene
I agree with this. And let me say that I'm not proposing my definition as a legal standard
Then the definition is useless.

Why do you want to classify acts as being rape or not rape? The answer must be to punish those who commit rape. Unless you want to punish the husband in the sleepy wife/horny husband scenario the same as the man in the gun to the head scenario, it is simply not useful to call them both "rape"

Any definition must indicate a desire to treat all behavior that is covered by the definition equally. Convicition of rape equals mandatory 5-15 years of prison (or whatever the current sentancing guidelines say). Decide what behavior you want to punish, and form your definition around that.

If you think sleepy wife/horny husband is criminal, but not as criminal, then propose a new crime to fit your sensibility (2nd degree rape?) and subject it to the review of the boards. However, it is inappropriate to lump both actions into the same definition unless you are willing to punish the actors the same.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-28-2003, 03:02 PM
KoalaBear KoalaBear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Quote:
If the person initiating sex knows or should reasonably know that his/her partner probably wouldn't or doesn't want to be engaging in the activity, this is rape.
Oh, please. No means No and Yes means No, isn't that what you're trying to say?

That how a woman feels about her sexual misadventures after she's sobered up enough to recall them is the standard by which she can retroactively declare her participation to be involuntary? Or was it consensual only to the extent a blood-alcohol test can prove her partner was equally schnockered? If he turned down that last Bacardi and Coke but she didn't, their one-night-stand was actually a rape?

I don't know what's up with all the rape threads lately, but it's obvious why they're so contentious. One can't claim they were victims of a savage assault just because they regret being a slut the next morning.

If a woman is blind and says "yes" to a night of hot sex with the Elephant Man, that doesn't mean he raped her even if he took advantage of the fact she can't see to evade being rejected for his looks.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-28-2003, 03:11 PM
SisterCoyote SisterCoyote is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Quote:
OP by KoalaBear
they regret being a slut the next morning
And does a man who is raped due to incapatation also become a "slut" the following morning?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-28-2003, 03:28 PM
Tee Tee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally posted by KoalaBear
I don't know what's up with all the rape threads lately, but it's obvious why they're so contentious. One can't claim they were victims of a savage assault just because they regret being a slut the next morning.
It's the mythical epidemic of remorseful women claiming rape once they sober up - that might be why the threads become contentious.

But I don't see how drinking necessarily removes the ability to consent or resist - the burden of proof still being on the alleged victim to prove incapacitation - so even sven's definition is still a good one.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-28-2003, 04:01 PM
Palo Verde Palo Verde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
2 possible definitions for your perusal:

1. a physical invasion of a sexual nature, committed on a person under circumstances which are coercive.

(the definition in Tanzania)

2. Sexual intercourse with a person who does not consent to the sexual intercourse, under any of the following circumstances:
a) When the victim is overcome by force or fear
A) When the victim is unconscious or physically powerless; or
B) When the victim is incapable of giving consent because the effect of any alcoholic liquor, narcotic, drug or other substance, which condition was known to the offender or reasonably apparent to the offender.

( legal definition in Kansas)
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-28-2003, 04:21 PM
nogginhead nogginhead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
I'm more interested in an ethical definition than a legal one.

Quote:
Pencil Pusher
Why do you want to classify acts as being rape or not rape? The answer must be to punish those who commit rape.
Why assume this? I'd like to walk around with a clear conscience, myself. I'd like to know when the boundary of rape is crossed, so I don't cross it, not so I can get away with it legally.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-28-2003, 04:32 PM
Gadarene Gadarene is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 6,636
What nogginhead said.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-28-2003, 05:48 PM
Bricker Bricker is online now
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 45,614
J. Merrick, horribly ugly and a complete asshole, but very rich, offers $10,000 to a woman for sex. She's deep in debt, about to be evicted, and needs to pay for operations for her suffering child and saintly mother. She'd never sleep with him under any other circumstances, and is repelled at the thought. But she agrees anyway, because of her desperate need for money.

S. Chase, horribly ugly and a complete asshole, is the senior partner at accounting firm Sweet Farwick, and his recommendation is necessary to become a partner. He tells the earnest young woman hoping for a partnership that the only way she'll get it is to sleep with him. He assures her that she has no way to prove a sexual harrassment case against him. She would never sleep with him under other circumstances, but believes it's the only way to secure the partnership that her work already merits.

H. Berger, a noted lawyer with a great track record against the local Social Services agency, is approached by a young woman whose two children have been taken from her due to false allegations of neglect. After realizing that she cannot afford to pay his fee, he offers to represent her for one tenth of his usual fee if she sleeps with him, and notes that he is the best chance he has for getting custody of her children back. She agrees to the deal.

Which of the above cases describes a rape?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-28-2003, 05:58 PM
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
None of the above, d'uh. They all are harassment and blackmail, and almost surely as damaging as rape.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-28-2003, 06:09 PM
Gadarene Gadarene is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 6,636
At least the first one and probably the second one, in my opinion. Sex without free consent is rape; coercive sex is rape. If she would truly "never sleep with him under any other circumstances," if she is truly "repelled at the thought," and if he knows all this and coerces her into sex anyway, he's raping her.

In my opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-28-2003, 06:10 PM
KoalaBear KoalaBear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Quote:
Sistercoyote
And does a man who is raped due to incapatation also become a "slut" the following morning?
If he changes his answer from "yes" to "no" the next morning, that would make him a bitch in addition to a slut.

Quote:
Tee:
It's the mythical epidemic of remorseful women claiming rape once they sober up - that might be why the threads become contentious.
I'm not convinced there isn't some truth to it even if its prevalence has been exaggerated. You can refuse to have sex with anyone for any reason or no reason, but you can't revoke your consent afterward.

Quote:
Gadarene:
What nogginhead said.
Quote:
nogginhead:
I'd like to know when the boundary of rape is crossed, so I don't cross it, not so I can get away with it legally.
In that case, Nogginhead, the only way to be sure is to request a notarized affidavit from the woman testifying that she's above the age of consent, mentally fit, not chemically dependent or in any way cognitively impaired, and sufficiently fluent in English to understand the difference between the words "Yes" and "No."

Apart from that you'll just have to rely on your own best judgment, remember the golden rule, and trust in a jury of your peers to arrive at the truth if it comes down to your word against hers.

Quote:
Guinastasia:
Quote:
Bricker:
... Which of the above cases describes a rape?
None of the above, d'uh.
What Guinastasia said.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-28-2003, 06:33 PM
Gadarene Gadarene is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 6,636
Quote:
If he changes his answer from "yes" to "no" the next morning, that would make him a bitch in addition to a slut.
At what point is a person sufficiently incapacitated in the first instance that their answer isn't "yes" to begin with?

Quote:
In that case, Nogginhead, the only way to be sure is to request a notarized affidavit from the woman testifying that she's above the age of consent, mentally fit, not chemically dependent or in any way cognitively impaired, and sufficiently fluent in English to understand the difference between the words "Yes" and "No."

Apart from that you'll just have to rely on your own best judgment, remember the golden rule, and trust in a jury of your peers to arrive at the truth if it comes down to your word against hers.
I actually don't disagree with any of this except for the notarized affidavit bit. This is the sort of calculation a guy should make before anything happens. But you seem to be ceding the converse point: that, if a woman is chemically dependent or cognitively impaired, a man who presses on will be at best irresponsible and guilty of poor judgment, and at worst a rapist.

Which brings me back to Felonius Mink's earlier statement:

Quote:
To some people taking advantage of someone who's passed out drunk is going to be every bit as bad as rape, whereas to others it's just one of those things that happens when you're drunk, and the fact that you're drunk is sufficiently mitigating circumstances.
Anyone gonna defend this?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-28-2003, 06:48 PM
catsix catsix is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Airman Doors said:
Then should most men "reasonably" assume that women will have second thoughts later and accuse them of rape? Or that women will come with you into your bedroom and yet it cannot "reasonably" be assumed that there will be sexual intercourse involved?
I think you have nailed the reason that I'm glad I am not a man in modern times. The problem with all the definitions of rape I've seen so far is that there's so much room for someone to turn around the next day when the guy didn't call and accuse him.

Then his name is in the newspaper and on TV and his life is ruined. Scary.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-28-2003, 06:56 PM
Truth Seeker Truth Seeker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Quote:
Originally posted by nogginhead
Why assume this? I'd like to walk around with a clear conscience, myself. I'd like to know when the boundary of rape is crossed, so I don't cross it, not so I can get away with it legally.
Here, again, is a basic problem. Some people want to conflate "rape" with "unethical." nogginhead is positing that anything that is not rape is, by definition, morally sound. Once again, you can do that if you want but I prefer my definitions to be meaningful. There's no reason that unethical sex practices and crimes can't have different labels and still all be bad things to do. There are a great number of gradiations that ought to be distinguishable, both in terms of the physical act and in the level and quality of consent.

For example, I strongly object to calling every possible form of sexual assault "rape." There are different levels and types of harm that occur. Forced sexual intercourse is a qualitatively different thing than forced sodomy for a whole bunch of reasons, not the least of which is the attendant risk of pregnancy. We need to have the language to distiguish between them.

Ditto for the consent issue. None of Bricker's examples ought to be thought of as "rape." They all may be various shades of unethical or illegal but it is ridiculous to try and lump them all together with being physically forced to have sex by a stranger with a knife at your throat. Apart for making for lousy statistics, doing so dillutes the very impact that those trying to expand the definition of rape are seeking to appropriate.

Look at his first example. Essentially, this is prostitution. It might be ugly, immoral and even unethical, but prostitution simply isn't "rape" under any meaningful definition of the word.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-28-2003, 11:02 PM
Mr2001 Mr2001 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
uo

Quote:
Originally posted by Truth Seeker
Essentially, this is prostitution. It might be ugly, immoral and even unethical, but prostitution simply isn't "rape" under any meaningful definition of the word.
Exactly. The phrase "she'd never sleep with him under any other circumstances" is irrelevant here, because the circumstances have changed to a situation in which she's is willing to sleep with him. He hasn't threatened her in any way, only bundled $10,000 in with the sex act to make it more appealing.

Look at shows like Survivor and Fear Factor for a similar example. Most people would never eat a bug just because someone asked them to, but for $1 million they're happy to eat a handful of bugs. There's a world of difference between being "coerced" to eat a bug with the promise of cash, and being coerced to eat one at gunpoint.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-28-2003, 11:22 PM
Tee Tee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
I agree with Guinastasia - none of the three.

Quote:
Originally posted by KoalaBear
I'm not convinced there isn't some truth to it even if its prevalence has been exaggerated. You can refuse to have sex with anyone for any reason or no reason, but you can't revoke your consent afterward.
Serious question - can one legally (now) revoke consent?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-01-2003, 01:04 AM
KoalaBear KoalaBear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Quote:
Gadarene:
At what point is a person sufficiently incapacitated in the first instance that their answer isn't "yes" to begin with?
That's a meaningless question. If the malt liquor tonight says "yes" but the hangover tomorrow says "no," the one that comes out of your mouth prior to intercourse is the one that determines your consent.
Quote:
I actually don't disagree with any of this except for the notarized affidavit bit.
I'll bet you're not keen on prenuptial agreements either.
Quote:
But you seem to be ceding the converse point: that, if a woman is chemically dependent or cognitively impaired, a man who presses on will be at best irresponsible and guilty of poor judgment, and at worst a rapist.
Well, you know, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't, aren't we?

The "consensus" you seem to be trying to reach is that sex = rape at a woman's sole discretion whether she consents to the activity or not.

That just strikes me as appallingly insensitive, both to women who've survived a sexual assault and to men who've been wrongfully convicted of the same.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-01-2003, 01:32 AM
Zoe Zoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Quote:
Then should most men "reasonably" assume that women will have second thoughts later and accuse them of rape?
If you want to have that view of women, why not just assume that at any given moment a complete stranger may file a report against you for rape?

If I were a guy, I would assume that any intoxicated woman that had not had sex with me previously was off limits.

Quote:
Or that women will come with you into your bedroom and yet it cannot "reasonably" be assumed that there will be sexual intercourse involved?
If a woman comes into your bedroom but still says no, it's rape. That doesn't mean that you can't try to entice her into changing her mind. But no is still no. Even if she is penetrated and then changes her mind, you must withdraw or it will be rape.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-01-2003, 01:49 AM
Airman Doors, USAF Airman Doors, USAF is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 13,220
Quote:
Originally posted by Zoe
Even if she is penetrated and then changes her mind, you must withdraw or it will be rape.
I'm left absolutely speechless by this. Consent, once given, can be withdrawn on a whim? What if the woman says no right at the point of orgasm? Is that rape?

Not only no, in my opinion, but HELL no. What it is is ridiculous, the fact that you think you can change the parameters of a consentual act any ol' time you feel like it.

I need some aspirin right now. My eyes are a little sore from how far they just rolled into the back of my head.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-01-2003, 09:09 AM
coffeecat coffeecat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 1,362
What if she has a flashback to something awful in her past and says, "NO, NO, honey, please stop!" while crying? I'd stop, wouldn't you? That doesn't mean she's not a bitch if she withdraws consent frivolously, but I'd say you'd still have to stop, just as you wouldn't have the right to kidnap her if she frivolously backed out on a dinner invitation at the last minute.

One caveat: Ladies, if you must say no in mid-act, please remember that 90% of our blood supply will be somewhere other than our brain. Say it loud and clear, and give us a few seconds to process it. It's not rape if we don't know you don't want to. For this reason, I would be reluctant to convict a man of rape under those circumstances--I would need to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the man heard the "no." Morally though, the man is honor-bound to stop.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-01-2003, 09:29 AM
Lamia Lamia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Quote:
Originally posted by coffeecat
What if she has a flashback to something awful in her past and says, "NO, NO, honey, please stop!" while crying? I'd stop, wouldn't you?
Right. And perhaps more commonly, what if she says "Ow, stop, you're hurting me!" while crying? Better stop right away, or you might do her some serious physical damage. Sometimes people may have important, valid reasons for withdrawing their consent after a sex act has begun. If I ended up with a torn and bloody vagina because my sexual partner ignored my cries of pain and pleas to stop then I would feel raped, and I think justifiably so.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-01-2003, 09:37 AM
Tristan Tristan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Airman- I have had those exact circumstances happen to me, for the reason given by coffeecat.

I immediately withdrew, and backed up, and stopped. It was hard.... really really hard, but I did it.

My ex-girlfriend once said she wasn't sure if she was in the mood. I said "Why don't we try, and we'll find out?"

Several orgasms later, while cuddling, she joked that she could now press rape charges on me, since she had never given consent.

There are numerous reasons why she is my ex, and that is one of them.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-01-2003, 09:42 AM
Eva Luna Eva Luna is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Chicago-ish, IL
Posts: 9,330
Ummmm, damn straight I feel I should be able to enter a man's bedroom and not have sex with him. I've done that quite successfully on a number of occasions. In fact, one ex and I used to sleep in the same bed for many, many months before there was any sexual intimacy at all, but he was a gentleman and knew exactly what he was getting into. Geez, if I'm in a guy's bedroom and kiss him, somehow I've magically consented to sex? Does the geographical location somehow give divine blessing to force unwanted sexual contact on me? I think not.

In fact, I think that as long as I'm not misleading him about what level of physical intimacy I have consented/will consent to, I should be able to do (or not do) anything I want. If I want to get naked but not have sex, that should be OK. If I want to have oral sex but not intercourse, or vice versa, that should be OK. And you'd better believe that if I consented to intercourse, but the guy forced me to give him a BJ instead, I'd consider that rape.

The flip side of that, though, is that I wouldn't go into a guy's bedroom if I didn't trust him, and I wouldn't drink in a situation where I was likely to be alone with a guy if I didn't trust him. (Of course, I doon't drink often anyway, and have been drunk exactly once in my life, which helps.) Not that this would prevent any possibility of rape, but it sure cuts down on the odds (of an acquaintance rape-type rape, anyway).
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-01-2003, 10:07 AM
Tristan Tristan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
[hijack]

Eva Luna shows again, why women have the upper hand in dating and relationships.

Personally, if a girl wanted to get naked in my bed with me, and then not have intimacy, I would kick her out. That's just teasing.

[/hijack]
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-01-2003, 10:25 AM
Eva Luna Eva Luna is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Chicago-ish, IL
Posts: 9,330
Well, Tristan, I guess you and I will never be an item...

I should make it clear that I am always upfront about my expectations, and have never known a guy (not since the schmuck I dated in high school, anyway) who had a problem with that.

If a guy is only interested in nakedness if sex will follow immediately, he also has plenty of opportunities with me to bail beforehand. Geez, doesn't anyone believe in the joys of delayed gratification anymore?

Plus, if I am comfortable with a guy and confident that he will respect my limits, the delay between nakedness and sex (or kissing and sex, for that matter) is likely to be a lot shorter. If he gives me what I want, which is security (OK, that's not all of what I want, but if it's not there, it's a dealbreaker) it's a lot more likely that he will get what he wants shortly thereafter.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-01-2003, 10:44 AM
Tee Tee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
I guess there's a need to address this 'I expect intimacy' issue before we can even define consent. Most people do plan on some kind of intimacy when they get naked in bed together. There may be a stopping point though. Is this unreasonable?
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-01-2003, 10:47 AM
coffeecat coffeecat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 1,362
Quote:
Originally posted by Lamia
And perhaps more commonly, what if she says "Ow, stop, you're hurting me!" while crying?
You mean the woman is emotionally willing, but so dry it hurts, and they have to stop altogether because the man can't skillfully help resolve the problem? I'm sorry, Lamia, I had no idea such a thing was possible, much less common.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 03-01-2003, 11:49 AM
even sven even sven is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
We've adressed this before, Airman Doors, USAF...

While your orgasm may be important, there are some things that are more important. Like a woman that realizes that she just missed a pill. Or someone experiencing tearing or other extreme pain. Or someone that realizes that she'd rather not have sex with a guy that thinks his orgasm is so important that he'd plow away at a girl that is hating the experience enough to ask to make it stop.

I mean, let imagine that you've decided to try what anal sex with a man felt like. You go to the bar and pick up some nice handsome guy, and just after he enters you realize that it hurts like hell, you've got a wife and kids at home, and you don't even like guys. I guess it'd be okay for him to keep pounding into you even as you say "No. Stop. Take it out. Take it out right now." I mean, he has to come, right?
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 03-01-2003, 12:12 PM
Eva Luna Eva Luna is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Chicago-ish, IL
Posts: 9,330
Quote:
Originally posted by coffeecat
You mean the woman is emotionally willing, but so dry it hurts, and they have to stop altogether because the man can't skillfully help resolve the problem? I'm sorry, Lamia, I had no idea such a thing was possible, much less common.
I know you were joking, but seriously, it can be an issue in all sorts of ways. I had some minor gynecological surgery 3 months ago, and have absolutely no idea how this will affect my comfort level the next time the occasion, ummmm, arises. Whoever the guy in question may be, I will need to have a chat with him about it first. It isn't necessarily about the woman's emotional willingness.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 03-01-2003, 12:55 PM
Lamia Lamia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Quote:
Originally posted by coffeecat
You mean the woman is emotionally willing, but so dry it hurts, and they have to stop altogether because the man can't skillfully help resolve the problem? I'm sorry, Lamia, I had no idea such a thing was possible, much less common.
You didn't know that it is possible for women to experience severe pain during intercourse? Well it is, and it's not a laughing matter. There are many factors, ranging from a lack of sufficient lubrication to endometriosis, that can cause a woman to experience pain of the "Oh God it hurts! Stop! Stop!" variety. I've known women who couldn't even use tampons because it hurt too much. I have seen figures estimating that 20-30% of women will experience such a problem at some point in their lives, and for some women it is a chronic problem.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 03-01-2003, 01:47 PM
KoalaBear KoalaBear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Quote:
Zoe:
If you want to have that view of women, why not just assume that at any given moment a complete stranger may file a report against you for rape?
What, as if that doesn't happen? As if no woman would ever wreck a man's life if accusing a complete stranger of rape meant she could evade taking responsibility for her own promiscuity?
Quote:
Lamia:
what if she says "Ow, stop, you're hurting me!" while crying?
... while wearing a schoolgirl's uniform while bent over the "principal's" desk while hiking up her plaid skirt to reveal a pair of black silk crotchless panties? If "yes" means "no" at a woman's discretion, couldn't "no" mean "yes?"
Quote:
Eva Luna:
If he gives me what I want, which is security (OK, that's not all of what I want, but if it's not there, it's a dealbreaker) it's a lot more likely that he will get what he wants shortly thereafter.
So it's not a matter of passion for you, but a transaction? In other words, if he gives you a gold chain it's consensual, but if he shows up empty-handed it's a rape?
Quote:
even sven:
We've adressed this before, Airman Doors, USAF...
While your orgasm may be important, there are some things that are more important.
... like enlarging one's Prada collection, for instance.

I really must thank the ladies contributing to this thread for broadening my consciousness on this issue. I used to think rape was a particularly ugly form of violent crime, but now I'm starting to think it's the active ingredient in a can of Pussy-Whip.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 03-01-2003, 01:52 PM
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
BTW, for those people who are quoting me when I said they weren't rape-I still say they are technically, coercion, blackmail and sexual harassment, and are often almost as bad as actual rape.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 03-01-2003, 02:13 PM
Lamia Lamia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Quote:
Originally posted by KoalaBear
If "yes" means "no" at a woman's discretion, couldn't "no" mean "yes?"
I don't see how you're getting this "yes" means "no" business from "Ow, stop, you're hurting me!" means "no", although I suppose you may have been distracted by your sordid schoolgirl fantasies.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 03-01-2003, 05:25 PM
LouisB LouisB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Seminole, FL
Posts: 8,230
My ex and I lived together for several months; sleeping in the same bed, sometimes naked, sometimes not. We did a lot of necking/petting/whatever the PC expression is, but we didn't engage in intercourse because she wanted to be "sure" for her first time.

Eva Luna has the right of it; if the woman is honest going in, the man has no recourse but to respect her wishes.
__________________
LouisB
Timor Mortis Conturbat Me
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 03-01-2003, 05:29 PM
Eva Luna Eva Luna is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Chicago-ish, IL
Posts: 9,330
Quote:
Originally posted by KoalaBear
So it's not a matter of passion for you, but a transaction? In other words, if he gives you a gold chain it's consensual, but if he shows up empty-handed it's a rape?

[snip]

I really must thank the ladies contributing to this thread for broadening my consciousness on this issue. I used to think rape was a particularly ugly form of violent crime, but now I'm starting to think it's the active ingredient in a can of Pussy-Whip.
Ummm, if you knew me at all, or if you had actually paid attention to what I wrote, you'd realize just how laughable an assertion yours is. The pronoun "what," if you will notice, in the context of my statement was not referring to a material object of any sort. I was referring specifically to a feeling of security in that case. If you don't think it's reasonable to expect to feel safe with someone before having sex with him, well, then it's hopeless to discuss the matter further. The rest of "what I want" tends to consist of things like love, affection, mutual respect, intelligence...never once did I mention jewelry, you will note.

If you want to think of sex as a transaction, then well, that's your own sad perogative. I suppose one might stretch the definition of "transaction" to the point where "we make each other happy" is a transaction, which is the only way I ever meant it. Ideally, in sex, there is some sort of exchange of emotions, not just bodily fluids. I suppose there are some women who will only have sex in exchange for tangible items, but where I come from, we call those women prostitutes.

Women who use sex as a tool to manipulate men are despicable. Men who suggest that all, or even most women do so are equally despicable.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 03-01-2003, 05:58 PM
EyeballBoy EyeballBoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
To the eucalyptus-eatin' marsupial writer of the highly misogynistic posts.

I don't think anyone, other than a few loonies, is defending that someone can give her consent after a drink or two one night, and then change her mind the morning after because her partner doesn't call and seriously call it rape. Some people (see loonie comment above) may claim this, for whatever reason, but I haven't seen anyone here support it.

This, IMHO, falls in the same camp of lunacy as the idiots who argue "she was wearing a short skirt, so she was asking for it", only at the opposite extreme.

It is true that false accusations happen, and can be extremely damaging to a person's reputation.

It is also true that rape happens, and the accused is 'such a good boy' and the victim 'such a slut', that regardless of convictions (which often don't happen because rape cases are hard to prove), he'll still be the local hero and she'll be the one shunned by the community.

Furthermore, if you're enacting your schoolgirl fantasy, and in a situation in which one partner wants to be able to shout out "No, no, stop, nooooo, no, no!" but continue with the activity in question, it is always advisable to previously agree on a safeword to yell out when things really do get uncomfortable, wether physically or psychologically, for one of the partners. People involved in BDSM, for example, do this a lot.

I'm sure you understand the difference between this situation and a situation in which a woman withdraws consent with a sound "No." or a "Please, stop." without any previous agreement to ignore these requests, especially if accompanied by a displeased, uncomfortable, or pained tone of voice or expression. She may just be a tease, but she may seriously be unfomfortable, for whatever reason, even physically injured. If someone continues to have sex with her without caring for her discomfort and ignoring her request to stop, they're assholes and, yes, rapists. They should think with the big head and not the little one, be that a penis glans or a clitoris.

In spite of the liberal use of female pronouns up there, you can switch genders about. I'm using "she" because Koala Bear's post, to which I'm responding, is misogynistic tripe, and the response is, in particular, to him/her.

Eva Luna already handled the issue of the 'transaction' and what she meant by it.

Some people may be close without having sex, naked without having sex, even making out without having sex, and some people may refuse giving consent to sex at any point during any of these if they don't feel comfortable or attracted to someone else, for whatever reason. I thought this was a given. Is it hard to grasp?

Again, I don't think anyone is saying that a woman has the right to claim rape after giving her consent if, the morning after, she does not receive a diamond ring.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 03-01-2003, 06:27 PM
Pencil Pusher Pencil Pusher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
In defense of Airman Doors, USAF, this thread is about the definition of rape. The statement he was responding to was, "Even if she is penetrated and then changes her mind, you must withdraw or it will be rape."

I'm simply not convinced that it should be classified as rape. Although later posters came up with some additional circumstances (Pain, flashbacks, etc.) which may make the woman more sympathetic, and possibly elevate the act to "rape" none of those were included in the original statement.

What if a woman says "don't orgasm inside me" and the man does anyway. I simply don't think that's rape.

Rape occurs in the animal kingdom. The female generally fights, quite literally, tooth an nail to avoid being raped. Humans are a bit more intelligent. They can weigh options and decide that their very survival might depend on their not resistance.

If I'm sitting on the jury, and I find out that, while a couple is in middle of having sex, the woman notices the clock says 8:00 and said, "Get off, American Idol is comming on the TV." Frankly, I'm going to want to see evidence that she had that animalistic reaction of fight or flight, and started franticly beating on the man to get him off. I'm simply not going to convict the guy of anything unless some physical harm was done, or he made some credible threat. It is the woman's perogative to drop the guy like a bad habit for being so insensitive. However, I don't think the scenario belongs in a courtroom.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.